Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes

In the long-pending suo motu matter concerning deficiencies in criminal trials, the Supreme Court is set to consider a comprehensive compilation filed by Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra, seeking adoption of revised Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2026, in supersession of the 2021 framework.The suo motu case, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, led to the 2021 judgment, where the Court framed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice and directed States and High Courts to implement them within six months.With the coming into force of the new criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the amicus has urged the Court to recalibrate the 2021 Rules to align them with the new procedural and evidentiary architecture, particularly the technology-driven provisions introduced under the BNSS and BSA.BackgroundIn April 2021, the Supreme Court framed uniform Draft Rules of Criminal Practice to address systemic gaps in investigation, charge-framing, trial procedure, evidence marking, and judgment writing. The Court also directed consequential amendments to police manuals and High Court rules.Subsequently, in March 2022, Registrars General and Chief Secretaries were directed to file Action Taken Reports.However, with the enactment of the BNSS and BSA, which formally incorporate audio-visual recording, digital evidence management and time-bound procedures, the amicus contends that the 2021 Rules require structured modification to prevent overlap and ensure doctrinal consistency.It is prayed that the revised Rules be treated as binding directions under Article 142 until formally adopted by High Courts.Key Changes Proposed In Investigation And Trial1. Mandatory Audio-Video RecordingThe revised draft emphasises compliance with BNSS provisions mandating or enabling audio-visual recording of:Scene of crime under Section 176 BNSSSearch and seizure under Section 105 BNSSStatements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSSEvidence during trialThe Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a detailed SOP for audio-video recording under BNSS, prescribing:Hash value generationDual certification under Section 63(4) BSAChain of custody documentationSecure storage and mirroring of digital evidenceThe amicus seeks directions for uniform SOP adoption across States and Union Territories, including encryption standards, access control mechanisms and tamper-proof storage.2. Dual Certification Under BSAA significant shift under the BSA is the requirement of certification under Section 63(4) for electronic records.The SOP contemplates:Part A certificate by the operator or officer in chargePart B certificate by a designated expertThe amicus has highlighted the need for States to notify experts under Section 329 BNSS and Section 79A of the IT Act to operationalise this requirement.3. Time-Bound Framing Of ChargeThe revised Rules stress compliance with Section 251(1)(b) and Section 263 BNSS, which mandate framing of charge within 60 days from the first hearing on charge.The amicus notes that this timeline applies equally to Special Courts, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act.4. Standardisation Of Evidence RecordingThe draft reiterates that:Depositions must be paragraph-numberedExhibits must carry witness-linked markingOmnibus marking of entire Section 161 or 164 statements must be avoidedEvidence should be recorded in AV format wherever feasibleJudgments must contain:Points for determinationFindingsReasonsStructured appendices listing witnesses and exhibitsBail Timelines And Undertrial ConcernsThe amicus has also sought structured bail timelines:Bail applications in non-bailable offences to be disposed of within 3 to 7 daysPrioritisation of undertrials in custody beyond five yearsRelease on personal bond where detention exceeds likely sentenceReliance is placed on the directions passed in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Hussain v. Union of India.Witness Protection: Uneven Compliance Across StatesThe amicus has flagged inconsistent implementation of witness protection schemes under Section 398 BNSS, which now statutorily codifies the framework earlier approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India.States and UTs that have issued schemes include Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Chandigarh and Delhi. Maharashtra continues with its 2017 statute.States such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and others are yet to notify schemes under Section 398 BNSS. In one matter, notice has already been issued to Madhya Pradesh regarding non-notification.The amicus has sought status reports and timelines for promulgation.e-True Copy Rules As Model FrameworkThe compilation also annexes the e-True Copy Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2024,...

Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags